Jacksons' fate a question of time

Some experts see probation for Sandi, but public-official status hurts odds for both fallen pols

August 11, 2013|By Katherine Skiba, Chicago Tribune reporter

Former South Side power couple Jesse Jackson Jr. and Sandi Jackson, with children Jessica, left, and Jesse III, appear at an event in Chicago in 2012. The pair now await sentencing for misusing campaign funds and underreporting income, among other crimes. (Zbigniew Bzdak, Tribune photo)

WASHINGTON — Former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. is looking at prison time, but there's an outside chance his wife, Sandi, could get probation, according to legal experts interviewed by the Tribune as the couple prepares for sentencing.

The Jacksons will learn their fate Wednesday after a fall from grace in which he quit Congress and she resigned from the Chicago City Council and both pleaded guilty to felonies involving a spending spree with $750,000 in campaign cash.

In interviews, lawyers and law professors predicted that Jesse Jackson Jr., 48, would receive a prison term of about two to four years and that Sandi Jackson, 49, might get probation but otherwise would be ordered to serve four to 18 months.

The experts said the case poses tough issues for the sentencing judge:

How much slack, if any, should Jackson Jr. get because he reportedly has severe depression and bipolar disorder?

How much stock should be put in the argument that Sandi Jackson should retain her freedom so that she can care for their 13-year-old daughter and 9-year-old son?

How to style a punishment that sends the proper messages to the Jacksons, to a scandal-weary public and to other elected officials tempted to go astray?

"It's indisputably true that the bigger they are, the harder they fall," observed Ohio State University law professor Douglas Berman, the author of a book on sentencing and a self-described "sentencing geek."

"Do we acknowledge the hardness of their fall, or are we still going to get our pound of flesh? That's never been fully sorted out by the law."

His prediction: That Jackson Jr. will get two years and Sandi Jackson will receive either six months in prison or one year and a day. (Because of a quirk in the system, defendants sentenced to a year or less cannot qualify for time off for good behavior in prison. But those sentenced to a year and a day can qualify, which means they may end up serving only about 10 months.)

Berman agreed with a point made by Jackson Jr.'s lawyers, who told the court: "The harsh spotlight of the media that has followed him at every step of the investigation, his plea and his sentencing has already punished Mr. Jackson and his family immeasurably."

Berman said the Jacksons, not being "run-of-the-mill tax cheats," had endured stigma and loss of reputation, intangibles that need to be weighed against the public perception that unless felons get hard time, they've gotten off with a slap on the wrist.

At the Illinois Institute of Technology's Chicago-Kent College of Law, Todd Haugh envisions tougher sanctions. He thinks the judge will send Jackson Jr. away for a period at the low end of the sentencing guidelines, which call for 46 to 57 months. Haugh expects Sandi Jackson to get 12 to 18 months.

Haugh, a visiting assistant professor, just put in a stint at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which establishes sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts.

"The judge has to sentence both the offender, who this person is, and the offense," said Haugh, who believes Jackson Jr.'s mental condition, while it could be an important factor at sentencing, won't "carry the day" and allow him to avoid incarceration.

In a 2005 decision, the Supreme Court said federal sentencing guidelines, which went into effect in 1987, were no longer mandatory for judges but merely advisory. They're still important, though, along with four principles guiding federal sentences: just punishment, deterrence, incapacitation (removing someone from society to prevent them from committing crime) and rehabilitation.

In hammering out their plea deals, prosecutors gave the Jacksons consideration for accepting responsibility for their wrongs, pleading guilty and sparing the government the burden of putting them on trial. All improve their standing at sentencing.

Haugh noted that federal law says a sentence should be "sufficient" — but not greater than necessary. A term is expected to reflect a host of factors, including the seriousness of the crime and the need to promote respect for the law, deter criminal conduct and protect the public from further crimes by the defendant.

In the case of the Jacksons, Haugh was struck by the prosecution's "explicit strategy" of publicly documenting dozens of frivolous, high-end purchases made by the South Side Democrats — from a men's Rolex watch to mounted elk heads to celebrity memorabilia. "Furs, Michael Jackson's fedora — they're all kind of ridiculous," Haugh said. "And this was not a one-off crime, this was pretty long term."

He thinks the government wanted to prove how egregious the Jacksons' conduct was and reinforce what prosecutors said in court papers: that his crime arose out of "greed and entitlement" and that she not only lied about her income, but was a thief. Prosecutors, in arguing for jail time for Sandi Jackson, wrote that she was "not simply a beneficiary of her husband's thefts. Defendant stole. In fact, she stole a lot."